Another false dichotomy. The 1990's was a period that illustrated very neatly the dangers of sticking too rigidly to either view. From 1995-97, larger companies outperformed smaller ones dramatically. By mid-97, the FTSE 100 had risen 28.5% while the SmallCap Index excluding investment trusts had fallen by nearly 1%.
Of course, this turned out to be a signal that the pendulum was about to swing back. In the next two years, smaller companies picked up speed. In the twelve months to the end of 1999, the SmallCap Index soared 49%, while the FTSE 100 increased by 19%.
Such fluctuations in performance suggest that large and small companies both have their place in growth portfolios:
In a static portfolio, you clearly do not want frequent chops and changes. A good strategy may therefore be to invest in a mix of
Until its recent problems, Microsoft was a fine example of a company that would have made an excellent investment at any stage of its growth. Starting as a two-man band in 1975, it had become the largest company in the world by 1998. Even when it became a juggernaut, it still delivered share price gains of over 50% year after year.
In a dynamic portfolio, you need to stay alert for signals that smallcaps are starting to outperform. A study of the US market from 1926-96 found one simple indicator worked very well: "Small-cap stocks outperformed big stocks during times when nominal GDP was booming, but have lagged when it was slowing". In other words, switch to smaller companies when you see economic growth accelerating at a rate faster than inflation (as happened from 1998-2000).
Recommend ReadingQuote
"Blue chip companies are usually safer investments than other kinds of stocks. With companies of Dow stock calibre, there is more opportunity than risk."Quote
"Elephants don't gallop."Book offers!
